Forster v. Forster

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Forster v. Forster

11 So. 3d 972, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3965, 2009 WL 1159186

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 1, 2009

Docket5D07-3515

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 So. 3d 972 (Forster v. Forster) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Forster v. Forster, 11 So. 3d 972, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3965, 2009 WL 1159186 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this dissolution proceeding, the parties divorced, remarried and divorced again three months later. Appellee claimed that she was induced by fraud to remarry because Appellant wanted to avoid an alimony award entered after a default during the first divorce. The trial judge found fraud and elected to treat both marriages as one continuous marriage, which was within his discretion given the facts of this case. See Cox v. Cox, 659 So.2d 1051, 1055 n. 5 (Fla.1995). However, instead of determining alimony based on the circumstances at the time of trial, it appears that the trial judge simply reinstated the alimony award entered in the prior divorce decree without regard to the present financial positions of the parties. No finding was made as to the net income of the parties, the need of the wife and ability of the husband to pay, the standard of living of the parties during the marriage and other factors required by section 61.08(1), Florida Statutes (2007). We, therefore, reverse the alimony award and remand this cause to the trial court to make such findings as required by the statute, based on the conditions as they existed at the time of trial.

In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

SAWAYA, TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In this dissolution proceeding, the parties divorced, remarried and divorced again three months later. Appellee claimed that she was induced by fraud to remarry because Appellant wanted to avoid an alimony award entered after a default during the first divorce. The trial judge found fraud and elected to treat both marriages as one continuous marriage, which was within his discretion given the facts of this case. See Cox v. Cox, 659 So.2d 1051, 1055 n. 5 (Fla.1995). However, instead of determining alimony based on the circumstances at the time of trial, it appears that the trial judge simply reinstated the alimony award entered in the prior divorce decree without regard to the present financial positions of the parties. No finding was made as to the net income of the parties, the need of the wife and ability of the husband to pay, the standard of living of the parties during the marriage and other factors required by section 61.08(1), Florida Statutes (2007). We, therefore, reverse the alimony award and remand this cause to the trial court to make such findings as required by the statute, based on the conditions as they existed at the time of trial.

In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

SAWAYA, TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 So. 3d 972, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3965, 2009 WL 1159186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forster-v-forster-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack